Comparison of fine-needle aspiration and fine-needle biopsy devices for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid lesions: a systemic review and meta-analysis

Priscilla A. van Riet; Nicole S. Erler; Marco J. Bruno; Djuna L. Cahen

doi:10.1055/a-1206-5552

Endoscopy, Inhaltsverzeichnis

Endoscopy 2021; 53(04): 411-423
DOI: 10.1055/a-1206-5552

Systematic review

Comparison of fine-needle aspiration and fine-needle biopsy devices for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid lesions: a systemic review and meta-analysis

Priscilla A. van Riet

¹Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

,

Nicole S. Erler

²Department of Biostatistics, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

,

Marco J. Bruno

¹Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

,

Djuna L. Cahen

¹Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

› Institutsangaben

Abstract

Background Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition is extensively used, but the optimal sampling device is still a matter of debate. We performed meta-analyses on studies comparing fine-needle aspiration (FNA) with fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needles, and studies comparing different FNB needles.

Methods Online databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of at least 50 cases with a suspected solid pancreatic or nonpancreatic lesion that compared FNA with FNB needles. Outcome measures included diagnostic accuracy, adequacy, number of passes, presence of tissue cores, and adverse events. We also performed meta-regression analysis on the effect of FNB design on diagnostic accuracy. Quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool.

Results 18 RCTs comparing FNA with FNB needles were included. FNB provided a higher pooled diagnostic accuracy (87 % vs. 80 %; P = 0.02) and tissue core rate (80 % vs. 62 %; P = 0.002), and allowed diagnosis with fewer passes (P = 0.03), in both pancreatic and nonpancreatic lesions. A total of 93 studies were included comparing different FNB devices. Pooled diagnostic accuracy was higher for forward-facing bevel needles than for the reverse bevel needle. In this analysis, study quality was low and heterogeneity was high (I² = 80 %).

Conclusion FNB outperformed FNA when sampling pancreatic and nonpancreatic lesions. Forward-facing bevel FNB needles seemed to outperform the reverse bevel FNB needle, but the low quality of evidence prevents us from making strong recommendations on the optimal FNB design.

Volltext

Referenzen

References
1 Erickson RA. EUS-guided FNA. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 60: 267-279
2 Huang JY, Chang KJ. Improvements and innovations in endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 2015; 22: E37-E46
3 Wani S, Muthusamy VR, McGrath CM. et al. AGA White Paper: Optimizing endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition and future directions. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018; 16: 318-327
4 Ribeiro A, Vazquez-Sequeiros E, Wiersema LM. et al. EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration combined with flow cytometry and immunocytochemistry in the diagnosis of lymphoma. Gastrointest Endosc 2001; 53: 485-491
5 Layfield LJ, Ehya H, Filie AC. et al. Utilization of ancillary studies in the cytologic diagnosis of biliary and pancreatic lesions: The Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology Guidelines. Cytojournal 2014; 11: 4
6 Diaz Del Arco C, Esteban Lopez-Jamar JM, Ortega Medina L. et al. Fine-needle aspiration biopsy of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: correlation between Ki-67 index in cytological samples and clinical behavior. Diagn Cytopathol 2017; 45: 29-35
7 Polkowski M, Larghi A, Weynand B. et al. Learning, techniques, and complications of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling in gastroenterology: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Technical Guideline. Endoscopy 2012; 44: 190-206
8 Fabbri C, Fuccio L, Fornelli A. et al. The presence of rapid on-site evaluation did not increase the adequacy and diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition of solid pancreatic lesions with core needle. Surg Endosc 2017; 31: 225-230
9 Iglesias-Garcia J, Dominguez-Munoz JE, Abdulkader I. et al. Influence of on-site cytopathology evaluation on the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of solid pancreatic masses. Am J Gastroenterol 2011; 106: 1705-1710
10 Van Riet PA, Cahen DL, Poley JW. et al. Mapping international practice patterns in EUS-guided tissue sampling: outcome of a global survey. Endosc Int Open 2016; 4: E360-E370
11 Gines A, Wiersema MJ, Clain JE. et al. Prospective study of a Trucut needle for performing EUS-guided biopsy with EUS-guided FNA rescue. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 62: 597-601
12 Itoi T, Itokawa F, Sofuni A. et al. Puncture of solid pancreatic tumors guided by endoscopic ultrasonography: a pilot study series comparing Trucut and 19-gauge and 22-gauge aspiration needles. Endoscopy 2005; 37: 362-366
13 Wittmann J, Kocjan G, Sgouros SN. et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue sampling by combined fine needle aspiration and trucut needle biopsy: a prospective study. Cytopathology 2006; 17: 27-33
14 Li H, Li W, Zhou QY. et al. Fine needle biopsy is superior to fine needle aspiration in endoscopic ultrasound guided sampling of pancreatic masses: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Medicine (Baltimore) 2018; 97: e0207
15 Facciorusso A, Sunny SP, Del Prete V. et al. Comparison between fine-needle biopsy and fine-needle aspiration for EUS-guided sampling of subepithelial lesions: a meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2020; 91: 14-22.e2
16 Facciorusso A, Wani S, Triantafyllou K. et al. Comparative accuracy of needle sizes and designs for EUS tissue sampling of solid pancreatic masses: a network meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 90: 893-903.e7
17 Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J. et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 2009; 6: e1000100
18 Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB. et al. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2003; 3: 25
19 Viechtbauer W, Cheung MW. Outlier and influence diagnostics for meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods 2010; 1: 112-125
20 R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2018
21 Viechtbauer W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J Stat Softw 2010; 36: 1-48
22 Aadam AA, Wani S, Amick A. et al. A randomized controlled cross-over trial and cost analysis comparing endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration and fine needle biopsy. Endosc Int Open 2016; 4: E497-E505
23 Alatawi A, Beuvon F, Grabar S. et al. Comparison of 22G reverse-beveled versus standard needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid pancreatic lesions. United Eur Gastroenterol J 2015; 3: 343-352
24 Bang JY, Hebert-Magee S, Trevino J. et al. Randomized trial comparing the 22-gauge aspiration and 22-gauge biopsy needles for EUS-guided sampling of solid pancreatic mass lesions. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 76: 321-327
25 Cheng B, Zhang Y, Chen Q. et al. Analysis of fine-needle biopsy vs fine-needle aspiration in diagnosis of pancreatic and abdominal masses: a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018; 16: 1314-1321
26 Hedenström P, Demir A, Khodakaram K. et al. EUS-guided reverse bevel fine-needle biopsy sampling and open tip fine-needle aspiration in solid pancreatic lesions – a prospective, comparative study. Scand J Gastroenterol 2018; 53: 231-237
27 Hedenström P, Marschall HU, Nilsson B. et al. High clinical impact and diagnostic accuracy of EUS-guided biopsy sampling of subepithelial lesions: a prospective, comparative study. Surg Endosc 2018; 32: 1304-1313
28 Hucl T, Wee E, Anuradha S. et al. Feasibility and efficiency of a new 22G core needle: a prospective comparison study. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 792-798
29 Iwashita T, Nakai Y, Mukai T. et al. A 19-gauge histology needle versus a 19-gauge standard needle in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for solid lesions: a multicenter randomized comparison study (GREATER Study). Dig Dis Sci 2018; 63: 1043-1051
30 Kamata K, Kitano M, Yasukawa S. et al. Histologic diagnosis of pancreatic masses using 25-gauge endoscopic ultrasound needles with and without a core trap: a multicenter randomized trial. Endoscopy 2016; 48: 632-638
31 Lee BS, Cho CM, Jung MK. et al. Comparison of histologic core portions acquired from a core biopsy needle and a conventional needle in solid mass lesions: a prospective randomized trial. Gut Liver 2017; 11: 559-566
32 Lee YN, Moon JH, Kim HK. et al. Core biopsy needle versus standard aspiration needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid pancreatic masses: a randomized parallel-group study. Endoscopy 2014; 46: 1056-1062
33 Nagula S, Pourmand K, Aslanian H. et al. Comparison of endoscopic ultrasound-fine-needle aspiration and endoscopic ultrasound-fine-needle biopsy for solid lesions in a multicenter, randomized trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018; 16: 1307-1313.e1301
34 Noh DH, Choi K, Gu S. et al. Comparison of 22-gauge standard fine needle versus core biopsy needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of suspected pancreatic cancer: a randomized crossover trial. Scand J Gastroenterol 2018; 53: 94-99
35 Othman MO, Abdelfatah MM, Padilla O. et al. The cellularity yield of three different 22-gauge endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration needles. Diagn Cytopathol 2017; 45: 426-432
36 Sterlacci W, Sioulas AD, Veits L. et al. 22-gauge core vs 22-gauge aspiration needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of abdominal masses. World J Gastroenterol 2016; 22: 8820-8830
37 van Riet PA, Larghi A, Attili F. et al. A multicenter randomized trial comparing a 25-gauge EUS fine-needle aspiration device with a 20-gauge EUS fine-needle biopsy device. Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 89: 329-339
38 Vanbiervliet G, Napoléon B, Saint Paul MC. et al. Core needle versus standard needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsy of solid pancreatic masses: a randomized crossover study. Endoscopy 2014; 46: 1063-1070
39 Weston BR, Ross WA, Bhutani MS. et al. Prospective randomized comparison of a 22G core needle using standard versus capillary suction for EUS-guided sampling of solid pancreatic masses. Endosc Int Open 2017; 5: E505-E512
40 Attili F, Spada C, Pagliari D. et al. Histological diagnostic yield of 3 different needles for EUS-FNB: bigger size not always makes the difference!. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: AB340
41 Cho E, Park CH, Kim TH. et al. A prospective, randomized, multicenter clinical trial comparing 25-gauge and 20-gauge ProCore needles for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid pancreatic lesions. United Eur Gastroenterol J 2018; 6: A169
42 Crinò SF, Manfrin E, Bernardoni L. et al. Histological procurement yield of a newly designed 20-gauge ProCore EUS needle for the evaluation of solid pancreatic neoplasms. Dig Liver Dis 2018; 50: e156
43 Hedenström P, Demir A, Khodakaram K. et al. The accuracy and clinical impact of endoscopic ultrasound-guided dual needle sampling in solid pancreatic lesions. Endosc Ultrasound 2017; 6: S46
44 Jeffrey H, Nelsen EM, Holobyn TJ. et al. Performance of a fork tipped needle versus reverse bevel needle in EUS-guided fine needle biopsy. Am J Gastroenterol 2017; 112: S461-S462
45 Nguyen N, Phan VA, Ruszkiewicz A. Comparison of diagnostic performance of the 22G and 20G endoscopic ultrasound-guided core biopsy needles: a randomized trial. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017; 32: 46-47
46 Yuen Chow C, Leong Ang T, Eu Andrew Kwek B. et al. A comparison of diagnostic usefulness and workload impact using endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration cytology (EUS-FNAC) versus endoscopic ultrasound fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) for solid non-cystic lesions. Lab Investig 2018; 98: 770-771
47 Abdelfatah MM, Hamed A, Koutlas NJ. et al. The diagnostic and cellularity yield of reverse bevel versus fork-tip fine needle biopsy. Diagn Cytopathol 2018; 46: 649-655
48 Antonini F, Giorgini S, Fuccio L. et al. EUS-guided sampling with 25G biopsy needle as a rescue strategy for diagnosis of small subepithelial lesions of the upper gastrointestinal tract. Endosc Int Open 2018; 6: E892-E897
49 Armellini E, Manfrin E, Trisolini E. et al. Histologic retrieval rate of a newly designed side-bevelled 20G needle for EUS-guided tissue acquisition of solid pancreatic lesions. United Eur Gastroenterol J 2019; 7: 96-104
50 Attili F, Petrone G, Abdulkader I. et al. Accuracy and inter-observer agreement of the ProCore 25 gauge needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue core biopsy. Dig Liver Dis 2015; 47: 943-949
51 Berzosa M, Villa N, El-Serag HB. et al. Comparison of endoscopic ultrasound guided 22-gauge core needle with standard 25-gauge fine-needle aspiration for diagnosing solid pancreatic lesions. Endosc Ultrasound 2015; 4: 28-33
52 Chong CCN, Teoh AYB, Tang RSY. et al. EUS-FNA using 22G nitinol or ProCore needles without on-site cytopathology. Endosc Ultrasound 2018; 7: 56-60
53 DeWitt J, Cho CM, Lin J. et al. Comparison of EUS-guided tissue acquisition using two different 19-gauge core biopsy needles: a multicenter, prospective, randomized, and blinded study. Endosc Int Open 2015; 3: E471-E478
54 Dwyer J, Pantanowitz L, Ohori NP. et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided FNA and ProCore biopsy in sampling pancreatic and intra-abdominal masses. Cancer Cytho 2016; 124: 110-121
55 Fabbri C, Luigiano C, Maimone A. et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy of small solid pancreatic lesions using a 22-gauge needle with side fenestration. Surg Endosc 2015; 29: 1586-1590
56 Han JP, Lee TH, Hong SJ. et al. EUS-guided FNA and FNB after on-site cytological evaluation in gastric subepithelial tumors. J Dig Dis 2016; 17: 582-587
57 Iglesias-García J, Abdulkader I, Lariño-Noia J. et al. Evaluation of the adequacy and diagnostic accuracy of the histology samples obtained with a newly designed 19-gauge EUS histology needle. Rev Esp Enferm Dig 2014; 106: 6-14
58 Iglesias-Garcia J, Poley JW, Larghi A. et al. Feasibility and yield of a new EUS histology needle: results from a multicenter, pooled, cohort study. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 1189-1196
59 Imaizumi H, Kida M, Okuwaki K. et al. Diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration with an aspiration needle and a core biopsy needle. J Intervent Gastroenterol 2014; 4: 81-86
60 Inoue T, Okumura F, Sano H. et al. Impact of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy on the diagnosis of subepithelial tumors: a propensity score-matching analysis. Dig Endosc 2018;
61 Iwashita T, Nakai Y, Samarasena JB. et al. High single-pass diagnostic yield of a new 25-gauge core biopsy needle for EUS-guided FNA biopsy in solid pancreatic lesions. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 909-915
62 Jiang H, Guo J, Wang K. et al. 22-Gauge biopsy needles have a better histological diagnostic yield in the discrimination of specific pancreatic solid neoplasms. Scand J Gastroenterol 2019;
63 Kim GH, Cho YK, Kim EY. et al. Comparison of 22-gauge aspiration needle with 22-gauge biopsy needle in endoscopic ultrasonography-guided subepithelial tumor sampling. Scand J Gastroenterol 2014; 49: 347-354
64 Larghi A, Iglesias-Garcia J, Poley JW. et al. Feasibility and yield of a novel 22-gauge histology EUS needle in patients with pancreatic masses: a multicenter prospective cohort study. Surg Endosc 2013; 27: 3733-3738
65 Lee JH, Cho CJ, Park YS. et al. EUS-guided 22-gauge fine needle biopsy for the diagnosis of gastric subepithelial tumors larger than 2 cm. Scand J Gastroenterol 2016; 51: 485-492
66 Lee M, Min BH, Lee H. et al. Feasibility and diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine needle biopsy with a new core biopsy needle device in patients with gastric subepithelial tumors. Medicine (Baltimore) 2015; 94: e1622
67 Mavrogenis G, Weynand B, Sibille A. et al. 25-gauge histology needle versus 22-gauge cytology needle in endoscopic ultrasonography-guided sampling of pancreatic lesions and lymphadenopathy. Endosc Int Open 2015; 3: E63-E68
68 Nayar MK, Paranandi B, Dawwas MF. et al. Comparison of the diagnostic performance of 2 core biopsy needles for EUS-guided tissue acquisition from solid pancreatic lesions. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: 1017-1024
69 Paik WH, Park Y, Park DH. et al. Prospective evaluation of new 22 gauge endoscopic ultrasound core needle using capillary sampling with stylet slow-pull technique for intra-abdominal solid masses. J Clin Gastroenterol 2015; 49: 199-205
70 Park SW, Chung MJ, Lee SH. et al. Prospective study for comparison of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition using 25- and 22-gauge core biopsy needles in solid pancreatic masses. PLoS One 2016; 11: e0154401
71 Schlag C, Menzel C, Gotzberger M. et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue sampling of small subepithelial tumors of the upper gastrointestinal tract with a 22-gauge core biopsy needle. Endosc Int Open 2017; 5: E165-E171
72 Strand DS, Jeffus SK, Sauer BG. et al. EUS-guided 22-gauge fine-needle aspiration versus core biopsy needle in the evaluation of solid pancreatic neoplasms. Diagn Cytopathol 2014; 42: 751-758
73 Witt BL, Adler DG, Hilden K. et al. A comparative needle study: EUS-FNA procedures using the HD ProCore and EchoTip 22-gauge needle types. Diagn Cytopathol 2013; 41: 1069-1074
74 Woo YS, Lee KH, Noh DH. et al. 22G versus 25G biopsy needles for EUS-guided tissue sampling of solid pancreatic masses: a randomized controlled study. Scand J Gastroenterol 2017; 52: 1435-1441
75 Yang MJ, Hwang JC, Yoo BM. et al. A prospective randomized trial of EUS-guided tissue acquisition using a 25-gauge core biopsy needle with and without a stylet. Surg Endosc 2018; 32: 3777-3782
76 Yang MJ, Yim H, Hwang JC. et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid pancreatic masses: 22-gauge aspiration versus 25-gauge biopsy needles. BMC Gastroenterol 2015; 15: 122
77 Abdelfatah MM, Grimm IS, Gangarosa LM. et al. Cohort study comparing the diagnostic yields of 2 different EUS fine-needle biopsy needles. Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 87: 495-500
78 Attili F, Rimbaş M, Fantin A. et al. Performance of a new histology needle for EUS-guided fine needle biopsy: a retrospective multicenter study. Dig Liver Dis 2018; 50: 469-474
79 DiMaio CJ, Kolb JM, Benias PC. et al. Initial experience with a novel EUS-guided core biopsy needle (SharkCore): results of a large North American multicenter study. Endosc Int Open 2016; 4: E974-E979
80 El Chafic AH, Loren D, Siddiqui A. et al. Comparison of FNA and fine-needle biopsy for EUS-guided sampling of suspected GI stromal tumors. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 86: 510-515
81 Ishikawa T, Mohamed R, Heitman SJ. et al. Diagnostic yield of small histological cores obtained with a new EUS-guided fine needle biopsy system. Surg Endosc 2017; 31: 5143-5149
82 Jovani M, Abidi WM, Lee LS. Novel fork-tip needles versus standard needles for EUS-guided tissue acquisition from solid masses of the upper GI tract: a matched cohort study. Scand J Gastroenterol 2017; 52: 784-787
83 Larsen MH, Fristrup CW, Detlefsen S. et al. Prospective evaluation of EUS-guided fine needle biopsy in pancreatic mass lesions. Endosc Int Open 2018; 6: E242-E248
84 Naveed M, Siddiqui AA, Kowalski TE. et al. A Multicenter comparative trial of a novel EUS-guided core biopsy needle (SharkCore) with the 22-gauge needle in patients with solid pancreatic mass lesions. Endosc Ultrasound 2018; 7: 34-40
85 Rodrigues-Pinto E, Jalaj S, Grimm IS. et al. Impact of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy sampling with a new core needle on the need for onsite cytopathologic assessment: a preliminary study. Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 84: 1040-1046
86 Yan L, Ikemura K, Park JW. Utility of core biopsy with concurrent ROSE FNA in the diagnosis of pancreatic tumor – does the biopsy add any diagnostic benefit?. Diagn Cytopathol 2018; 46: 154-159
87 Carrara S, Di Leo M, Bernardoni L. et al. The use of a new core needle in the endoscopic ultrasound assisted tissue sampling for pancreatic solid masses: a multicentre prospective study. Dig Liver Dis 2018; 50: e108
88 Eusebi LH, Mogan S, Johnson G. et al. High diagnostic accuracy and safety of the 22g sharkcore needle for EUS-fine needle biopsy: a retrospective study from two tertiary centers in UK. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: AB347
89 Fantin A, Barbuscio I, Mescoli C. et al. EUS-FNB in mediastinal lesions with a new histology needle. Dig Liver Dis 2018; 50: e210
90 Kasi M, Ortiz Fernandez-Sordo J, Kaye P. et al. A preliminary report on the feasibility and efficacy of the novel EUS guided shark core fine needle biopsy. Gut 2017; 66: A219
91 Lariño-Noia J, Iglesias-Garcia J, Abdulkader-Nallib I. et al. Diagnostic accuracy of histological samples obtained with a new endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) needle for the evaluation of solid pancreatic tumors. Pancreatology 2018; 18: S93
92 Raina A, Kantsevoy SV, Pennington D. Novel fine needle biopsy needle significantly decreases number of needle passes and procedural time in patients with pancreatic cancer undergoing index diagnostic endoscopic ultrasound. Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 87: AB463-AB464
93 Yague AS, Hinojosa-Guadix J, Gonzalez-Canoniga A. et al. Quality evaluation and clinical impact of histology cores obtained with a novel EUS guided front-end biopsy needle on submucosal tumors. Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 87: AB358-AB359
94 Yague AS, Hinojosa-Guadix J, Pereda T. et al. Histology core obtained with a novel EUS-guided front-end biopsy needle on pancreatic lesions: specimen quality and clinical impact. Gastroenterology 2017; 152: S490
95 Adler DG, Muthusamy VR, Ehrlich DS. et al. A multicenter evaluation of a new EUS core biopsy needle: experience in 200 patients. Endosc Ultrasound 2018;
96 Bang JY, Hebert-Magee S, Hasan MK. et al. Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided biopsy using a Franseen needle design: initial assessment. Dig Endosc 2017; 29: 338-346
97 El 2nd H, Wu H, Reuss S. et al. Prospective assessment of the performance of a new fine needle biopsy device for EUS-guided sampling of solid lesions. Clin Endosc 2018; 51: 576-583
98 Fujita A, Ryozawa S, Kobayashi M. et al. Diagnostic ability of a 22G franseen needle in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of subepithelial lesion. Mol Clin Oncol 2018; 9: 527-531
99 Haseeb A, Jo Taylor L, Adler DG. Comparing endoscopic ultrasound-guided core biopsies of solid pancreatic and extrapancreatic lesions: a large single-operator experience with a new fine-needle biopsy needle. Ann Gastroenterol 2018; 31: 742-746
100 Ishikawa T, Kawashima H, Ohno E. et al. Clinical impact of EUS-guided fine needle biopsy using a novel Franseen needle for histological assessment of pancreatic diseases. Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019; 2019: 8581743
101 Mitri R, Rimbaş M, Attili F. et al. Performance of a new needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy in patients with pancreatic solid lesions: a retrospective multicenter study. Endosc Ultrasound 2018; 7: 329-334
102 Mukai S, Itoi T, Yamaguchi H. et al. A retrospective histological comparison of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy using a novel franseen needle and a conventional end-cut type needle. Endosc Ultrasound 2019; 8: 50-57
103 Sugiura R, Kuwatani M, Yane K. et al. Prospective, multicenter, observational study of tissue acquisition through EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy using a 25G Franseen needle. Endosc Ultrasound 2019;
104 Cheirsilpa K, Charatcharoenwitthaya P, Chalermwai WV. et al. Prospective assessment of the diagnostic performance of endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) in intraabdominal mass lesions; preliminary results. Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 87: AB348
105 Di Mitri R, Carrara S, Fabbri C. et al. High yield of core tissue for histological analysis with high diagnostic accuracy of EUS-fine needle biopsy using the 22g acquire needle: a multicenter prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: AB351
106 Fraig M, Alatassi H, Sanders MA. et al. Comparison between two types of needles for EUS-guided fine aspiration biopsy of pancreatic masses. Lab Investig 2018; 98: 142
107 Ishikawa T, Hirooka Y, Kawashima H. et al. Usefulness of histological assessment with EUS-guided fine needle biopsy using a new core needle in pancreatic diseases. Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 87: AB432-AB433
108 Karsenti D, Tharsis G, Zeitoun JD. et al. Comparison of the 20-gauge Procore and 22-gauge Acquire needles for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) of solid pancreatic or peripancreatic masses: an observational study. Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 87: AB441
109 Kong SC, De Martino S, Nasr I. et al. EUS-guided twenty-five gauge (25g) fine needle biopsy is safe but may not be the most effective size. Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 87: AB344
110 Miyano A, Ogura T, Masuda D. et al. Prospective comparison study of franseen needle and standard needle use for pancreatic lesions under EUS-guidance. Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 87: AB444
111 Signoretti M, Pizzicannella M, Balassone V. et al. Endoscopic ultrasound core tissue acquisition: a single center prospective study. United Eur Gastroenterol J 2018; 6: A413
112 Fujie S, Ishiwatari H, Sasaki K. et al. Comparison of the diagnostic yield of the standard 22-gauge needle and the new 20-gauge forward-bevel core biopsy needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition from pancreatic lesions. Gut Liver 2018;
113 Kim DH, Kim GH, Cho CM. et al. Feasibility of a 20-gauge ProCore needle in EUS-guided subepithelial tumor sampling: a prospective multicenter study. BMC Gastroenterol 2018; 18: 151
114 Nishioka N, Ogura T, Kurisu Y. et al. Prospective histological evaluation of a 20G core trap with a forward-cutting bevel needle for EUS-FNA of pancreatic lesions. Surg Endosc 2018; 32: 4125-4131
115 Aslam N, Liu E, Shaktawat S. et al. Prospective study of the diagnostic yield from 20G FNB needle in routine upper GL and HPB lesions. Gut 2018; 67: A32-A33
116 Di Mitri R, Mocciaro F, Antonini F. et al. Slow-pull technique fine-needle biopsy with 20-gauge needle (sputniq-20g study) versus standard suction of solid pancreatic lesions: a multicenter randomized trial. United Eur Gastroenterol J 2018; 6: A612
117 Jideh B, Desomer L, Mahajan H. et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided 20G core biopsy without rapid onsite evaluation (ROSE) versus standard fine-needle aspiration with ROSE: a new technical advance. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017; 32: 42
118 Tsuchida K, Iwashita T, Shibukawa G. et al. Histological diagnostic ability of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration using novel core biopsy needle for solid tumors of the pancreas: a retrospective multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: AB349-AB350
119 van Riet PA, Cahen DL, Biermann K. et al. Agreement on endoscopic ultrasonography-guided tissue specimens: comparing a 20-G fine-needle biopsy to a 25-G fine-needle aspiration needle among academic and non-academic pathologists. Dig Endosc 2019; 31: 690-697
120 Ali R, Goodman A, Pochapin M. et al. Impact of ProCore EUS fine needle biopsy on EUS procedures: a cost model. Am J Gastroenterol 2013; 108: S615
121 Paul N, Abboud G, Jamil LH. et al. EUS guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) versus fine needle biopsy (EUS FNB): a comparison of technical success, efficacy and cost analysis for pancreas masses. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: AB401
122 Arena M, Eusebi LH, Pellicano R. et al. Endoscopic ultrasound core needle for diagnosing of solid pancreatic lesions: is rapid on-site evaluation really necessary?. Minerva Med 2017; 108: 547-553
123 Fabbri C, Fuccio L, Fornelli A. et al. The presence of rapid on-site evaluation did not increase the adequacy and diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition of solid pancreatic lesions with core needle. Surg Endosc 2017; 31: 225-230
124 Bang JY, Hawes R, Varadarajulu S. A meta-analysis comparing ProCore and standard fine-needle aspiration needles for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition. Endoscopy 2016; 48: 339-349
125 Oh HC, Kang H, Lee JY. et al. Diagnostic accuracy of 22/25-gauge core needle in endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling: systematic review and meta-analysis. Korean J Intern Med 2016; 31: 1073-1083
126 Khan MA, Grimm IS, Ali B. et al. A meta-analysis of endoscopic ultrasound-fine-needle aspiration compared to endoscopic ultrasound-fine-needle biopsy: diagnostic yield and the value of onsite cytopathological assessment. Endosc Int Open 2017; 5: E363-E375
127 Wang J, Zhao S, Chen Y. et al. Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration versus endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle biopsy in sampling pancreatic masses: a meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2017; 96: e9258
128 Facciorusso A, Del Prete V, Buccino VR. et al. Diagnostic yield of Franseen and Fork-Tip biopsy needles for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition: a meta-analysis. Endosc Int Open 2019; 7: E1221-e1230
129 Early DS, Acosta RD. ASGE Standards of Practice Committee. et al. Adverse events associated with EUS and EUS with FNA. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 839-843
130 Jue TL, Sharaf RN. ASGE Standards of Practice Committee. et al. Role of EUS for the evaluation of mediastinal adenopathy. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 239-245
131 Dumonceau JM, Polkowski M, Larghi A. et al. Indications, results, and clinical impact of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling in gastroenterology: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline. Endoscopy 2011; 43: 897-912
132 Pitman MB, Layfield LJ. Guidelines for pancreaticobiliary cytology from the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology: a review. Cancer Cytopathol 2014; 122: 399-411
133 Polkowski M, Jenssen C, Kaye P. et al. Technical aspects of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling in gastroenterology: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Technical Guideline – March 2017. Endoscopy 2017; 49: 989-1006

Zusatzmaterial

Zusatzmaterial